Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shkar]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/17/trum...f-revenue.html



So yeah, a transparent grift.

r/crytocurrency had a post pop up in the popular feed the other day talking about a clause saying that Trump's cryptocurrency can't be sold.

He tried to create a currency that can't be traded, and even the cryptocurrency fans, who are probably THE most susceptible scam targets, aren't falling for it.

He'll get money from the cultists that know nothing about cryptocurrency, but yowza.

[Edge-]

https://archive.is/JEKU1

During Donald Trump’s presidency, his D.C. hotel charged the U.S. Secret Service 300 percent or more above standard government rates on multiple occasions, and at times charged the government agency more than it did other patrons — including a Chinese business and members of a foreign royal family, according to a new report released Friday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

Grifting the taxpayers, baby! MAGA! This is making America great again! Overcharge the people protecting him at the taxpayers expense to try to prop up his failing companies bottom line!

[Milchshake]

Holy shit there are 1.8k pages in the new Jack Smith appendix.

This is waaaay bigger than Her Emails. Should dominate the headlines for the next few weeks.....

Just kidding, Jeffe Zuckberg and friends will bury this.

[Valdhammer]

Holy shit there are 1.8k pages in the new Jack Smith appendix.

This is waaaay bigger than Her Emails. Should dominate the headlines for the next few weeks.....

Just kidding, Jeffe Zuckberg and friends will bury this.

The thing is, Comey’s bombshell was a letter. A very digestible letter. This is 1800 pages of dense legal material. And it’s not 2016 anymore. It won’t get any traction even though it shows clear as day that Trump willingly and intentionally tried his damn best to overturn the election and he then fomented a deadly insurrection. No presidential candidate has ever been worse in every sense of the word. And so far it’s looking like it doesn’t matter one bit.

[Belize]

Holy shit there are 1.8k pages in the new Jack Smith appendix.

This is waaaay bigger than Her Emails. Should dominate the headlines for the next few weeks.....

Just kidding, Jeffe Zuckberg and friends will bury this.

If the average american could read, they might be a little upset (assuming they don't agree with violently overturning an election they lost)

[BigToast]

It's always tough to be current in this thread. Have we discussed Arnold Palmer's dick yet? I hear it's pretty impressive.

[Edge-]

It's always tough to be current in this thread. Have we discussed Arnold Palmer's dick yet? I hear it's pretty impressive.

Yes. And how it's apparently not the first time that Donald has been sidetracked by discussing the size of Arnold Palmers penis.

[Breccia]

The defamed election workers may now claim their rightful belongings from Giuliani.

He has seven days to give the belongings to their rightful owners. Failure to do that, and oh wait, they also get $2 million in legal fees from Giuliani.

[gondrin]

The defamed election workers may now claim their rightful belongings from Giuliani.

He has seven days to give the belongings to their rightful owners. Failure to do that, and oh wait, they also get $2 million in legal fees from Giuliani.

On a side note about the legal fees. It is the ones owed to Giuliani by Trump, which will never see the light of day.

[Breccia]

Trump’s Tariffs and Economic Risk

From the WSJ OP ED board.

The evidence is clear that the tariffs had real costs and reduced the growth spurred by his other policies. Other countries retaliated, hitting U.S. producers of everything from apples to whiskey. The government paid farmers billions in compensation. Harley-Davidson had to shift production for its overseas customers to Thailand to stay competitive.

There was no great boom in manufacturing employment. More jobs involve using steel than making it, and one study said higher steel prices led to 75,000 lost manufacturing jobs. Consumers paid more for many products, as companies passed on tariff costs. The economic studies on these points are copious, and it’s worrisome that Mr. Trump and his advisers dismiss them.

So the WSJ, and most reasonable people, are capable of reading the data from Trump's term and saying "it did not do what Trump said it would do."

Ah, doi.

Then, they get into "could Trump even begin what he's saying he will do now?" The answer is "probably not".

The next question is whether Mr. Trump has the power to impose a universal tariff. The Constitution grants Congress, not the President, authority over trade. It’s unlikely that Congress would pass a new broad-based tariff on all imports, though protectionism has been gaining support in the Trump era.

But Congress has already ceded considerable power to the President, especially provisions against “unfair” trade practices (Section 301) and “national security” threats (Section 232). Mr. Trump used these powers in his first term, and he was aggressive in exploiting 232 in particular, as he no doubt would be again.

The bigger danger is that Mr. Trump might use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This law gives the President broad authority, after declaring an emergency, “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad. IEEPA has been used to freeze Venezuelan assets and stop exports to Iran. It has never been used to impose tariffs. Mr. Trump threatened Mexico with it in 2019 but stood down amid a deal to expand the “Remain in Mexico” migrant policy.

Yet it’s hard to believe Mr. Trump could legally get away with declaring all imports from everywhere an emergency to impose a tariff. That would transform IEEPA from a sanctions law into a grant of limitless presidential power over trade. Progressives love the idea of a carbon tariff. Could President Biden impose one unilaterally by declaring foreign emissions to be an emergency?

If Mr. Trump tries it, he may find himself in court, perhaps the Supreme Court. The current Justices have struck down similar efforts to abuse presidential power, such as Mr. Biden’s $400 billion student-loan forgiveness.

"It sounds like these people just hate Trump for no reason."

They don't. They're just not fucking stupid.

Mr. Trump’s overall economic agenda is superior to Kamala Harris’s model of tax, spend, mandate and regulate. But his tariff agenda is an anti-growth wild card that poses considerable economic risk in a second term. We’d have to hope financial markets and Congress deter the worst.

[Trifle]

Mr. Trump’s overall economic agenda is superior to Kamala Harris’s model of tax, spend, mandate and regulate.

X to doubt.

[Kaleredar]

Trump’s Tariffs and Economic Risk

From the WSJ OP ED board.



So the WSJ, and most reasonable people, are capable of reading the data from Trump's term and saying "it did not do what Trump said it would do."

Ah, doi.

Then, they get into "could Trump even begin what he's saying he will do now?" The answer is "probably not".



"It sounds like these people just hate Trump for no reason."

They don't. They're just not fucking stupid.

The only "silver lining" is that Trump doesn't actually care about any of this and is just saying it because it's an easy word that people dimly connect with something economic that make it sound bad for other countries and good for the US. He, and consequently, his followers, are not interested in their use beyond that. So any push back from congress would be enough to scud it, should we once again find ourselves in the dumbest timeline in November.

Let's all pray, however, that simply isn't the case, and following the Harris victory the world wants that we have to think of Trump and his economic policies no more than we have to continue to consider Romney wanting to cancel Sesame Street to save money.

[Breccia]

X to doubt.

The WSJ is not the only conservative journal to press X to doubt.

Trump’s tariffs pose a greater risk to markets than his tax cuts

I'll save you the trouble: "he made rich people richer with his tax cut for the rich, but he's also proposing a bunch of stupid shit."

The biggest risk is that a 60 percent tariff would prompt China to retaliate. It could do so by increasing tariffs on U.S. goods, harassing companies operating in China, intensifying its campaign to discourage Chinese people from buying U.S. brands and limiting the export of critical minerals.

My bottom line is that Trump’s tariffs would be the most extreme since the Smoot Hawley Tariff in 1930. They pose a significant threat to the global economy because of how far-reaching they are, the odds of implementation and the potential for widespread retaliation.

Should a new trade conflict break out, investors should be prepared for a spike in financial market volatility that is considerably greater than during the initial round of the U.S.-China trade war.

Not even people who think Trump is good for the economy, think Trump is good for the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

The only "silver lining" is that Trump doesn't actually care about any of this and is just saying it

Yes.

And imagine having to say "I am voting for Trump, both despite and in opposition to everything Trump says he stands for". Imagine following someone that you know for a fact has no idea what he's doing and is making shit up, and saying "this is the person I want to run the country, even though I admit everything he says he wants to do is a bad idea".

[Kaleredar]

The WSJ is not the only conservative journal to press X to doubt.

Trump’s tariffs pose a greater risk to markets than his tax cuts

I'll save you the trouble: "he made rich people richer with his tax cut for the rich, but he's also proposing a bunch of stupid shit."



Not even people who think Trump is good for the economy, think Trump is good for the economy.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes.

And imagine having to say "I am voting for Trump, both despite and in opposition to everything Trump says he stands for". Imagine following someone that you know for a fact has no idea what he's doing and is making shit up, and saying "this is the person I want to run the country, even though I admit everything he says he wants to do is a bad idea".

an explanation of every voter willing to vote for Trump.

[Surfd]

It's always tough to be current in this thread. Have we discussed Arnold Palmer's dick yet? I hear it's pretty impressive.

I'm more concerned with Trumps use of the adjective "beautiful" to specifically describe cows, given what we know of his apparent views on women he considers "beautiful".

[Gestopft]

No presidential candidate has ever been worse in every sense of the word. And so far it’s looking like it doesn’t matter one bit.

It is completely clear that at this point, Trump support is basically 100% "vibes" and completely detached from factual analysis.

[Poopymonster]

I'm more concerned with Trumps use of the adjective "beautiful" to specifically describe cows, given what we know of his apparent views on women he considers "beautiful".

A cow could be beautiful.
Most times I just see beef jerky wearing a leather jacket.
I've also seen some beautiful steaks in my time and I also once owned leather pants that were goddamn sexy.

[Paranoid Android]

Here is some Lefty candy for you if interested. It's from Chapo Trapo House, a very left channel if you don't want to click.




For you Libs out here the first 5 minutes you may not want to watch. After that it's amazing. Well edited clips of just how effin crazy Trumpism in. Of course we all know this but some visual stimulation for you. Watch at your own RISK.

[Edge-]

Watch at your own RISK.

How dramatic.

[Paranoid Android]

How dramatic.

For you Edge you should probably watch first 5 minutes.

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Alright 60% of me say this is a troll. Yet even this imagine nominating the person who has been running interference for him in a trial. Peak Trump.